The High Court has ordered Columb Brazil to pay costs after dismissing his claims against eight defendants in full. In a ruling delivered on 16 March 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin ordered the usual party and party costs for several defendants and a higher legal practitioner and client basis for the receiver and auctioneers.
The ruling dealt with costs following the court’s December 2021 judgment dismissing the claims. The State defendants, Bank of Scotland and defendants five to eight were entirely successful in their applications. The judge said the normal rule was that costs follow the event and found no special circumstances to justify departing from it.
The State defendants—Ireland, the Attorney General and the Property Registration Authority—were awarded the costs of the action, including their dismissal application, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The Bank was awarded its costs, including its March 2021 motion and written submissions on the form of order. The judge also ordered dismissal of the claims against those defendants.
The Bank had offered in 2020 to let Brazil discontinue the case against it with each side bearing its own costs. He declined. The judge agreed that the Bank should recover the costs of later submissions after it received no response to correspondence seeking agreement on the order.
The fifth to eighth defendants argued that loan and mortgage terms entitled them to full indemnity costs. The judge rejected that argument, finding the contract wording did not clearly cover legal costs incurred defending proceedings brought by the borrower. He also declined to award solicitor and own client costs against Brazil for his claims against the fifth and eighth defendants, noting that he had represented himself. Those defendants were awarded costs on the usual party and party basis.
The judge took a different view of the claims against the sixth and seventh defendants: a receiver and an auctioneer. In the underlying judgment, he had found that Brazil had not articulated a distinct claim against either. He said the agents had been named despite their professional roles and without a clear allegation of wrongdoing. In the costs ruling, he described that conduct as improper and ordered their costs to be adjudicated on a legal practitioner and client basis—a higher costs basis than the usual party and party assessment.
The ruling set out the costs orders and dismissal orders; it did not specify the amounts payable. Costs were to be adjudicated where the parties did not agree.